How to Be Immodest About Modesty

Corita brought up an interesting idea: we can behave immodestly while discussing modesty. I realize that I’m pretty much doing this right now by writing my third straight post about the topic, so—I don’t know, pray for me. (I’m going to be out of town all day anyway, so if the comment box gets all cluttered up with rabbits and pant suits and whatnot like it did on Thursday, don’t blame me).

I am distressed at least a little by the way that these modesty discussions inevitably draw so much description of the female body, clothed or barely-clothed.
. . . I am totally with you on pants, and modesty being situational. Is there, though, a limit to how to discuss modesty? A point, or a manner, in which it becomes, itself, immodest?

Ohhh, yes. There are three basic types of immodest modesty that I’ve seen in religious circles:

1. Praising chastity in such glowing terms that the windows fog up. This must make our guardian angels roll their eyes. Picture, if you will, a Catholic youth group in which young men and women are sequestered in a comfy lounge, going on and on and on and on about how wonderful it is to save oneself for marriage. Objectively, their words are on the up-and-up—but if you blink and shake your head to clear the air, you’ll realize that it’s really just a bunch of panting teenagers talking about how much they wanted to have sex.

They definitely get points for trying, but at a certain stage, you really have to say, “Well, I’m going to go play basketball now!” or “Hey, I’m going to hurl myself in this thorn bush a couple of times—who’s with me?”

2. Tireless vigilance about immodesty in others. This is especially loathesome in children. I’ve heard women boast about how their six-year-old son makes cutting remarks about the attire of a woman who jogs by the house: “Mommy, that lady must not like herself very much!” This is not the kid’s fault, of course. It’s the mom who should be smacked upside the head. Obviously we must set standards for ourselves, and teach our children how to dress and behave. But we are in charge of how we dress, and unsolicited rudeness about other people’s choices is rude and counterproductive.

Another form of this vigilance, popular among women, is to anonymously mail some “how to be modest” literature to one of our erring sistern. If you’ve been tempted to do this, you should know that (a) ill-mannered stunts like this make decent women want to start clothes shopping in the spray paint aisle; and (b) Dressing With Dignity is one of the most poorly-written books I’ve ever come across. And I own Scooby Doo and the Haunted Cupcake Factory.

3. Thinking about modesty until you can’t think about anything else. This habit is just as objectifying as any soft porn: if you only think about thebodythebodythebody all the time, you forget that you’re not the only one with a soul.

Remember the rumor of the Catholic executive who made his female employee kneel down on the floor to see whether her skirt was sufficiently long? True or not, it’s the perfect illustration of someone who’s entirely forgotten why we have guidelines for modesty in the first place: to promote respect for each other.

When we obsessively debate the specifics of clothing, we start out with good intentions in a tricky world, and end up as prickly, sour, neo-perverts. I’ll never forget the complaint of one guy who battled valiantly to inject some reason into the pants debate of yesteryear (in at least four different comment boxes). He was a guy who had struggled to begin to live chastely. He said that the end result of having to explain over and over to Leviticus devotees why it wasn’t a sin for women to wear pants was that he found himself thinking critically and probingly about every single woman he encountered. For instance, he used to enjoy a TV talk show with a female host, because of its excellent content—but after the modesty debate, he found himself thinking, “Should she be sitting that way? Am I being overly legalistic, or overly lax when I notice that she has knees? What if she buttoned that other button—would that help? I think I can see through her blouse—probably another fabric would have been a more modest choice.” He was justifiably furious at the cretins who forced him back into that mode of hyper-awareness of women’s bodies, when he had fought a long fight to overcome.

After a certain point, thinking about modesty all the time is just another way of thinking about sex all the time. No matter how you got there, it’s not a good place to be.

Comments

Mr. WAC: It’s funny that sistern is archaic and brethren is still used, albeit not often.

Posted by enness on Wednesday, Aug 17, 2011 8:26 PM (EDT):

I have had some interesting experiences in this area.

I went to a summer program with a large, conservative family and the girls were dressed in turtlenecks underneath long velvet dresses. In July. Tends to stand out, no? They were beautiful, talented girls, but they were the talk of the group and not in a terribly good way.

I had an eye-opener when I thought I was dressed “New-England-winter office casual” and a guy acted like I was dolled up to go bar trawling. I was flabbergasted. Then I happened to catch a glimpse of myself in a mirror later, and was surprised at the profile…but what is so terrible about wanting your jeans to be fitted enough to stuff into boots without being uncomfortable, getting slush all over them, etc.? It’s so confusing. I was disgusted with myself, and disgusted with him for making me feel disgusted…and on and on…

What finally made me throw up my hands and say “The heck with it” is when I was hit on in the cheesiest way in a Walmart while looking for (drumroll please) flu medication. I looked like an absolute zombie, and was still objectified. Lest I give the impression of being a braggart, I’m saying this only because I think a lot of women have the same experience and one’s own perception of subjective attractiveness doesn’t explain it all. I bet nuns still get inappropriate come-ons.

In conclusion, I have no conclusion. I have no idea. The whole thing makes my head spin and sometimes want to become a hermit.

Posted by magnusfide on Sunday, Aug 14, 2011 12:12 AM (EDT):

Simcha, I believe anyone can become obsessive including those who obsess about obsessive people. Methinks you doth protest too much.

Most modestly clothed people choose their clothes and wear them without further comment. They choose to set an example instead of whining or complaining about others. That’s the mark of a mature person.

Conversely, modest people are often “given advice” about how to dress more “contemporary”. There’s a woman in our parish who wears her ankle length dresses and beautiful lace shawls. She is always covered at Mass. Her most remarkable characteristic is the fact that she always finds a kind word or a cheerful story for everyone. Yet there are two women in the parish who constantly badger her about how she would look better in pants. She finally said, “I do not tell you how to dress, please return that same courtesy.”

Posted by Mr. WAC on Wednesday, Aug 10, 2011 6:35 PM (EDT):

LNBE: “Sistern” is an archaic plural of sister. “Cistern” is a device used to collect water.

Posted by Mr. WAC on Wednesday, Aug 10, 2011 6:33 PM (EDT):

Colleen Hammond Has a Posse.

Posted by M.J. on Saturday, Aug 6, 2011 4:00 PM (EDT):

I think this is a wonderful post, and I’m glad that not every Catholic who appreciates modesty loves “Dressing with Dignity”. I’ll admit that the book has done a lot of good in getting people to dress better, but it also promotes a legalistic view of what’s modest. The citation of “the Church’s” guidelines for modesty are misleading. The Church never gave these statements out ex cathedra, never mandated them in a Code of Canon Law. Not following them is not *inherently* sinful (though of course immodesty is). And those guidelines were written in another era. Like it or not, standards of modesty do change. A hundred years ago, it was considered risque for a woman to show her ankle, which nobody has any problems with nowadays. (This of course does not mean that modesty does not exist. It would be sinful for a woman back then to purposely show her ankle, and it’s sinful now for a woman to wear a bikini.)

And no, the writing in Dressing with Dignity isn’t that great. A lot of Mrs. Hammond’s argument turns on a scientific study that shows that pants are more immodest than dresses/skirts, but I was disappointed to find that she never cites the scientific study, or even mentions what institute of higher learning conducted it. I had wanted to look it up and read the first source.

Posted by Sabine S on Wednesday, Jul 20, 2011 10:57 AM (EDT):

I’m late to this discussion, having found it by a roundabout way.

I’m not sure if anyone noticed this but yes, Mrs. Hammond did ask to be part of this discussion by posting a link to the article and asking her 1586 “fans” what they thought. I can’t be sure, but if you’re one of her 4551 friends on her personal Facebook page, it’s reasonable to think she may have mentioned it there also.

At any rate, as I sit her in a t-shirt and demin shorts(!), Simcha, I don’t always agree with you but you are very funny and that i appreciate!

Posted by Cara on Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 11:13 AM (EDT):

I am a new reader to this blog….I have to say that Simcha has taken a topic and put a “mom spin” on it! I don’t find her words uncharitable regarding the book, “Dressing with Dignity”. As a 40+ mother of 4 (three boys & one girl); I read the book, trying to find “myself”!!! Wanting to portray a virtous “mom” role! Ha!! I became completely paranoid with my own dressing, and the dress of others. I felt “unattractive” in a frumpy dress and my husband didn’t like it either. My self esteem was low because I wasn’t seeing the worth and dignity in the body that God gave me. I can dress to reveal only what is supposed to be revealed, and be beautiful, without being immodest!! Pants or skirts…who knows, but I wear both and enjoy looking like a woman, made in the image and likeness of God!

Simcha, I will continue to read your blog. I believe that it is written from a mother’s heart, and with the humor that we all need to “make it through the day”! These are all struggles that we deal with and opinions run rampant!

BTW, toddlers are NOT modest by nature. I am on my 4th toddler and the inclination is nudity! Not because they want to sin, just because they don’t know any better! It is our responsibility, as parents and educators, to teach our children NON-JUDGEMENTAL ways of living in a society that is counter-cultural to our ways of living. Everyone is working out their salvation, and it is our responsibility to pray for them, as truth may not be available to them. We are called to evangelize in a loving and charitable way; we are not perfect either and maybe we can learn something about the “less than perfect” dressed individual that we may encounter.

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to say that a book is not good. Would those that are bashing also bash a “reviewer” of the book. We don’t have to agree with another to be considered “charitable”! Simcha is putting her humor to work, and I enjoyed the article!

God Bless,
Cara

Posted by Beth on Sunday, Jul 17, 2011 10:12 PM (EDT):

All I have to say is that #3 rings so true its ridiculous. I was raised by a good Catholic mother who taught to me not to flaunt my body, and often corrected me on my clothes choices, but I ran into “little house on the prairie” modesty as an adult. My mind was definitely more pure prior to being exposed to the sola skirtura crow. And, by the way, I feel the exact same way about Colleen Hammond’s book. If you can’t take the criticism, then you shouldn’t be publishing your material. All books are fair game for critical review.

Posted by Jane on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 11:01 PM (EDT):

C, I don’t understand.

Posted by C on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 10:52 PM (EDT):

Jane…..july 1st 9:05 am…...15th posting

Posted by Jane on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 6:53 PM (EDT):

Sorry, folks, but I still think Dressing With Dignity was a good read. I liked it. I was inspired by it. It changed my life and my outlook, for the better. But I guess I am not on the same high literary level as you people. I am a simple housewife.

I would still like someone to give me some concrete examples of why Dressing With Dignity is such a terrible book. Why was I not supposed to like it? Really, I am not being snarky. I want to know from those who know so much about literature, obviously a lot more than I do. I didn’t mean to be petty and I apologize for my sarcasm towards Mrs. Fisher. She seems like a fun lady even if I don’t understand why she lashed out at Colleen’s book without explaining exactly why she thinks it was “poorly written.” Has she written a review of it on Amazon? I looked but did not see one by her…..

BTW, as far as FB goes (which someone mentioned above) the last time I checked Colleen has not mentioned anything about this article on her page. (It seems that she is traveling.) She has over 4400 FB friends, too, and so it might be interesting to hear what they all have to say about her book. Do they all hate it? I wish someone would ask them….

Posted by Kristine on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 7:16 AM (EDT):

John is exactly right. I appreciated the comments reflecting on the actual topic Simcha ponders here. Simcha always keeps me coming back. I don’t know her. Am not a friend. I do like to read her thoughts on things and sometimes gasp at a biting comment or two. But mostly, she gets me thinking about something from point of view I may not have considered. I do know, from reading her blog, she likes a good book. And Mrs. Hammond’s, although full of good advice for folks who are looking for that kind of info, doesn’t constitute a good read. Simcha IS faithful to church teachings in her writing, and like the rest of us, could probably improve in charity. So write on Simcha. And right on with the post. Sheesh.

Posted by J H on Sunday, Jul 10, 2011 4:06 AM (EDT):

And as I would say to my students, “so, if you think that someone else is being petty, you should also be petty?”

I think that people don’t understand that a blog is supposed to be a PERSONAL reflection. This isn’t a column or article or op-ed piece. It’s a blog. Someone’s thoughts written on the internet for others to read. If someone else disagrees, who cares? Why can’t we all just get along?

Posted by Jane on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 9:09 PM (EDT):

I think the “middle school” tone was started by the startling brilliant and witty Miss Simcha. Did Colleen ask to be part of this? I think not. If Simcha can’t take a little criticism without all of her friends (or family?) rallying to her defense within 5 minutes of each critical comment than she is the one who needs to find another business. If you can’t cook, then get out of the kitchen.

Posted by Harvey on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 8:46 PM (EDT):

People need to learn to take a little criticism - Simcha certainly has!!

If Colleen cannot tolerate a little criticism, she’s in the wrong business. It’s nice of all of her Facebook friends to come here to bash Simcha - but it’s a little “middle-school”, isn’t it? At least that’s what my middle-school students would have done. “Mary Jane is crying because Susie doesn’t like her nail polish color. Let’s go and yell at Susie.”

Really, grow up.

Posted by Jane on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 8:12 PM (EDT):

No one is saying that Mrs. Hammond’s book cannot be criticized just because she is Catholic. I just think that if “Dressing With Dignity” is going to be referred to as “poorly written” then perhaps some concrete examples of why it is poorly written should be given rather than the flabby Scooby-do analogy. I mean, it does not seem to me that Simcha is that well-established and prestigious a writer herself that we should merely fall down and take her word for it when she decides to make fun of something she does not like. But maybe I am not aware of the literary greatness of Simcha Fisher. My own stupid fault. Forgive me, mea culpa.

As for something Mrs. Hammond may or may not have said on her FB page (I am referring to the brothel comment), it was not mentioned in the article above. Is it being mentioned now as an example of why we should all despise Mrs. Hammond and her every utterance? Or should we despise her just because Simcha in her great erudition has decided Mrs. Hammond’s writing does not measure up to Simcha’s high criteria? I hope that Mrs. Hammond starts reading Simcha’s column so she can learn what writing is really all about. So she can learn the REAL meaning of wit and a clever turn of phrase. Poor Colleen. She does not know what she has missed.

Posted by Kitty Katz on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 6:25 PM (EDT):

@Don Conklin: nice little advertisement you slipped in there for the cult that is Legionaries/Regnum Christi.

How about for every mention of yet another RC front, a post goes up to check life-after-rc.com?

Posted by C on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 6:05 PM (EDT):

I do not understand why an author/book can not be called bad just because the person is Catholic. many people find the book in question poorly documented….and manipulative of people’s feelings…..it can become an undue burden for many. Collen Hammond on the other hand uses worse ” sense of humor” in her Facebook page saying things like….Catholic brothels…..oopsI meant campuses” when referring to an article about Catholic University campuses….“brothels??” Iwrite this example because I find so many of the people bashing Simcha so fake….no one said anything to Collen when she “joked” that way….and this mess started because she put this page on her Facebook….so many of the “charitable” people here who are so harshly judging Simcha should be less judgeamental. There are many poorly documented Catholic books out there….really only books written by the Saints have been judged by the Church as a good source of teaching for the faithfull….all others can be wrong, please let them be put to the test…if you like it buy it for all your friends…let others have a different opinion without wanting their heads for it….when talking about charity please point the finger to yourself first.

Posted by dymphna on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 1:22 PM (EDT):

THis is a mean nasty high school girl type post. Instead of knocking Mrs. Hammond you ought to look to yourself.

Posted by Jacobitess on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 6:54 AM (EDT):

This post is an unworthy affront to a great woman who does not in anyway deserve the characterization given in this post. Shameful.

Posted by Mary cracraft on Saturday, Jul 9, 2011 1:43 AM (EDT):

From Mary Cracraft ( I sure wish the notifications from the Register included the non de plume so I knew who I was reading on the email verifications) I think “sola skirtura” is hilarious….I like a few laughs!

Posted by Jack Quirk on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 11:31 PM (EDT):

For my part I will continue to wear pants, regardless of what people say about it.

You’re hilarious, Simcha. Don’t let them drag you down.

Posted by Angela K on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 8:43 PM (EDT):

Wow, didn’t realize this was such a sore spot until I scrolled through some of these comments. I appreciate the point this article. Too much focus on the rules and we’ll start presuming on the state of another person’s soul. That’s not really something we need to worry about, thank God.

Posted by Don Conklin on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 5:08 PM (EDT):

At K4J we have a Mission of the Month called the Knock- Knock Mission that teaches modesty to children from preschool to 8th grade in our School of Virtue Program. The older kids help by leading and serving the younger ones. Send me an email at don@k4J.org and I will send you the Knock-Knock Mission Song. The Holy Hero for this Mission is Our Lady of Knock. The fight to promote modesty is much simpler when children are taught about their own dignity like we do with the K4J Virtue Programs.

Posted by Karen on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 2:47 PM (EDT):

People are too obsessed with modesty. I know because I used to be. I even tried the whole (horrible!!) long-skirt/dress only thing for a while. It was torture. I tripped on it going up the stairs, couldn’t garden or do yardwork properly, got chafe-rashes, half froze in the winter, and worst of all getting up into a high car or something was THE OPPOSITE of modest. If people want to wear all skirts that is up to them. I don’t think it’s more modest than wearing pants. If they do it to be more feminine, you know they could put on a pink shirt with their jeans. It’s silly. They always tell me it’s not a salvation issue and they aren’t being judgemental/legalistic, but it sure doesn’t feel that way. With how much I hate skirts it would HAVE to be a salvation issue for me to consider it again. Also I agree modest clothes are hard to find. I tend to find the most modest are also the most expensive. Don’t judge people too harshly. Clothing budgets can be very tight and more material flat out costs more.

Posted by Cam on Friday, Jul 8, 2011 1:57 AM (EDT):

Simcha-

I love your blog and your writing… but I’m really hoping we’ll be moving on from this series of posts soon! As a woman who does wear skirts and dress exclusively (and I don’t think that pants are wrong, but I found that I got harassed a lot more when I was wearing lose fitting pants than I do in skirts and dresses…) and has a blog I have found myself getting slammed from the other side (recently I got a comment that actually said the person didn’t think I probably had friends because I “looked Amish…”). I’m not sure why my mostly knee length dresses are so offensive to some women… but… as you can see from the other comments here, the topic does raise passions. Reading these posts with the comments about the “Sola Skirtura” doesn’t really help that already unpleasant division.

Both sides can be ugly. And the conversations here seem to be contributing to the ugliness…

Posted by Elena Maria Vidal on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 1:24 PM (EDT):

Mrs. Fisher, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. No, we Catholics should not be like the Amish. However, it is a free country. If people choose to be frumps they are are allowed and it does not bother me. However, I do not understand why Colleen Hammond was dragged into this discourse. I think you could have made your point without sniping at another Catholic writer, whose book is well-written even if it is not to your taste. I am surprised at the National Catholic Register for giving that remark a pass.

Posted by GARY THE ALLIGATOR on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 1:05 PM (EDT):

RIGHT, IT’S SO SNOBBY TO EXPECT PROFESSIONAL WRITERS TO BE GOOD AT WRITING! THIS IS JUST LIKE THE TIME I APPLIED FOR THE BRAIN SURGEON JOB AND THOSE JERKS SAID NO! JUST SAYING!

Posted by Ann Margaret Lewis on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 12:59 PM (EDT):

Pardon, I made a typo - my portion in quotes above should say:
“was not written in the best way, and could lead to some extreme reactions on the part of* the reader”

Posted by Ann Margaret Lewis on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 12:57 PM (EDT):

It’s interesting that Colleen is writing a book about gossip and backbiting, considering the comments here…nevertheless, I will say that Colleen wasn’t being trashed personally. Her writing has been criticized. Rather harshly. Simcha - I haven’t read the book in question, but if someone did not write something well, there are other, more gracious ways to say it. You could have said the book “was not written in the best way, and could lead to some extreme reactions on the part you the reader” and left out the demeaning reference to Scooby Doo. In other words, you may be right - the book might not be well-written. But being mocking the work (which you were) can be quite hurtful to the author (and those who know and love her).

Just sayin’

Posted by Kimberly on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 12:47 PM (EDT):

Dearest Simcha:

I’ve often been amused and impressed by your writing and self-deprecating humor. You’ve provided many an enjoyable read that I’ve shared with a not a few dear friends. Unfortunately, the tone of this particular article distresses me. Yes…it is an op-ed piece and we are all entitled to our opinions. Those who read you are quite aware of your great wit and talent for expressing your opinion on a variety of subjects. But the tone my dear…the tone of this article is judgmental and devoid of charity. Jesus calls some to express their love for Him through outward signs. I, for one, do not always wear a skirt or dress…but modesty is near and dear to my heart and I realize that others may have chosen skirt/dress wearing as a means of loving God and not of judgment. As a wife and mother of more than 30 years, with 5 daughters and four sons, I realize that the world is moving in directions that make this daughter of hippies blush! If we are to err…should it not be on the side of more modesty as opposed to less? I’m quite sure that you’re not advocating that…but there are those who might use your words to construe that meaning. It’s a difficult place to be in…to be read by many and to possibly have one’s words and thoughts misconstrued. The remark regarding Mrs. Hammond’s writing style was truly unnecessary in conveying your point. We are not all grammarians and editors…sometimes the message is more important than the method. Do keep writing. You have a great talent for it. But consider your words…whether they build up or tear down the body of Christ. I don’t for one moment doubt your sincerity…but charity and humility should reign in all things…even more so than modesty. True modesty, of body and heart, will be born of the aforementioned two superior virtues…

Posted by DMCOBOYLE@AOL.COM on Thursday, Jul 7, 2011 12:41 PM (EDT):

I don’t have time at the moment to read through the numerous comments here but must say that this blog post which was pointed out to me by others who are also disappointed with it is indeed disappointing. I am also disappointed that the Catholic Register would allow it (especially because a Catholic author’s book was bashed in it).

I also am utterly surprised and taken aback many times when I see the comments and fighting in com boxes. To me, it seems like a “near occasion of sin” in some cases. I have a funny feeling I’ll be bashed too because I am disappointed in this article.

The blogger’s last line gives us a clear picture of where she is coming from: “After a certain point, thinking about modesty all the time is just another way of thinking about sex all the time. No matter how you got there, it’s not a good place to be.”

Well, dear blogger, I disagree with your analogy about thinking of modesty all the time and relating that to thinking of sex all the time. Our Lord does indeed ask us to think about modesty all the time and that does not mean we are thinking of sex. It means we are following the teachings of the Church and by the way, modesty happens to be one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit (CCC # 1832).

Posted by Corita on Tuesday, Jul 5, 2011 10:28 AM (EDT):

Carrie, I understand your heartfelt admonishments against divisiveness in the faith, but I think that most people still miss the point about the modesty thing. Which is that, very few people seem *able* to, as you say “catechize” about it effectively.
//
The discussion nearly always becomes about somebody else’s body, or somebody else’s relationship with Christ/the Church/their self-esteem. Many women feel deeply the inherent imbalance in modesty discussions from time immemorial: that is, that women bear a greater burden for the collective sexual behavior of the human race. Specifically, a greater burden of guilt for the collective sexual sins.
//
Which, in my humble opinion, is a huge load of b.s. And there seems to be no way to talk about how *other people* can be modest without most of the people doing the discussing shaving a bit too close to one kind of sin or another: pride/false humility, judgementalism/Phariseeism, scrupulosity and obsessive thinking, and a whole host of other run-of-the-mill cultural sins like victim-blaming for rape, and sexism, and being ignorant of ones true place in history.
//
So I have come to believe that you can’t really talk about modesty in specific terms very easily without it being sheltered by a special relationship, and outside of that you can only speak verrrry generally, as in the philosophical inquiry into the virtue, and *not* “What NOT to wear.”
//
Discussing “What should I, or we, wear” is, in my opinion, best a conversation for parents and children, for a spiritual advisor and advisee, or a group of peers who are soberly seeking to do good, gossip-free and of the same gender. Every true virtue springs from within. Certain norms or disciplines can help nurture a virtue, certainly, which is why we have parental guidance and, later, traditional kinds of clothing for people to choose if they need more structure in understanding modest dress. (That long skirt phase so many of us earnest Catholic wives seem to go through is a good example.)
//
I am wary of books on the subject of modesty precisely because they are not a conversation that springs dynamically from a relationship, a conversation mindful of time and place—all these are aspects of the manifestation of the virtue. I suppose it is possible for such a book to be decent, but I would bet that would happen only if it stuck to “Why your body, and others’ bodies, are worthy of thoughtful care and adornment” and stayed away from measurements of length in inches, and assessments of whole categories of clothing. (Except shorts with words on the butt. When are they EVER a good idea?) But, of course, that would be a discussion of the virtue itself, and NOT one on how other people can show just how virtuous they are.

Posted by Emile on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 11:46 PM (EDT):

This whole pants versus skirt discussion is getting ridiculous. I am glad I come from a part of Canada where people go to mass to worship , not to stare all around to what the other people are wearing or not wearing . In this area the the fashion police gave up some 60 years ago. As for the persons who are distracted going to communion because of clothing, all you have to do is look where you are going and that should solve the problem. In my 78 years on this earth I have a lot more serious matters to worry about.

Posted by Carrie on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 4:02 PM (EDT):

Wow, Simcha, I love your blog, but it seems as though this post is a knee-jerk reaction to the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in regard to a pet peeve of yours. I haven’t read all the comments since I’ve been on vacation this weekend, but I felt compelled to comment. I definitely agree with a previous commenter that the “skirts vs. pants” issue is more a societal issue concerning femininity, rather than an issue of modesty. Also, I completely disagree with you about the child in the example you mentioned. As another commenter pointed out, it would have been rude or “weird” if he had said that to the woman in question, or even to just another bystander, but he said it to his MOTHER, and I think it is important to instill virtue in the minds of our children and I applaud the fact that his mother took the time to teach him WHY immodesty is wrong instead of leaving him to fend for himself in a decidedly immodest world. The person at fault here would be the MOTHER who bragged about her son to everyone she knew. But I can deal with a little vanity; at least she’s teaching her son.

I don’t think it’s fair or good to take part in this kind of “Catholic vs. Catholic” mentality. I realize it’s tiresome to hear Catholics endlessly pontificate certain points about modesty, but we live in a pretty sick world. We should be banding together; after all, don’t we agree that IMMODESTY is wrong? Shouldn’t we encouraging each other in our pursuit of being counter cultural instead of giving in to our annoyances regarding each other? Yes, people can be stupid and strange when it comes to their opinions on modesty. But I definitely don’t think it’s an issue of “obsession with sex either way.” I don’t think people obsessed with modesty are by association also obsessed with sex; I think they’re desperately hanging on to a piece of decency that’s totally and utterly lost in our world today, and they just want to make themselves heard. Changing the way you dress is a lot easier than changing the way you think or act, so that’s why they harp on it so much. If they can get someone to change the way they dress, maybe changing their minds will follow. I don’t agree with their methods, but I think I’m objective enough to realize they actually DO have good intentions. Well, most of them, anyway.

In any case, I think the caricature you paint of the “super-crazy-ridiculous-modesty-obsessed” individual is pretty rare. I’ve never met one, and I don’t know anyone else who’s ever met one, either (though rumors may abound). But I sure know a lot of people who don’t comply to ANY standard of modesty (or even know what the virtue is), and I think our time would be more fruitfully spent catechizing them instead of chastising those who are a little over-zealous.

Posted by Daehnob on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 2:18 AM (EDT):

“I’m a married spud, I’m a married spud, I’M A MARRIED SPUD”. The whole conversation is hilarious at this point. GREAT article!!!!

There is nothing to elicit a heap of comments like the question of modesty or “the skirt issue” and I going to add my comment to the extensive heap. Here’s the thing, how old are your kids? Have you had to take a teen boy to the store for shoes and had look at teen girls in tube tops and short-shorts and KNOW he saw them too? Have you a teen girl who has to look at herself in the mirror after being subjected to Victoria’s Secret billboards? If your oldest child is the six year old mentioned then the question of modesty might stil be academic. I can tell you as the mother of ten, some of whom are older, that we need MORE modesty not more excuses to just dress like everyone else.

Posted by Mark on Monday, Jul 4, 2011 12:18 AM (EDT):

If you have been recently diagnosed with STD, you may be upset and confused and think your sexual life is over. However, it’s not the end of the world, and it’s not the end of your social life. You are not alone! Check STDsingle. com. Many cities in the US and around the world have herpes/HIV/HPV/Hepatitis social and support groups that you can join to meet others who are in the same situation.

Posted by R_LA on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 8:51 PM (EDT):

For the record, I’ve been following Simcha’s post the accompanying comment wars all week. Today at Mass I spent all of communion fighting the distraction of evaluating the modesty of every woman that walked by. (I am a woman.)

Excellent point in #3, Simcha. I think I need to take a break from this debate. The modesty overload has temporarily stopped me from seeing people as people instead of clothes on bodies.

Posted by Michael Lessens on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 8:24 PM (EDT):

I will not cast aspersions on the National Catholic Register. It’s the other National Catholic Reporter that tends to lean left and over the edge into heresy that I find diabolical. The National Catholic Register tends to stay within the confines of what the Church teaches and administers through the Pope and the Magisterium.

Posted by Michael Lessens on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 8:19 PM (EDT):

Well,

I thought that, “Dressing with Dignity” was a well-written book. It wasn’t filled with “opinion”, but a “best understanding” of what should be considered “modest”. I don’t think that Colleen Hammond said that dresses were considered for chores or play clothes. I guess I have to go back to read the book to see what all the hub-bub is about. It just said to look your best and not look frumpy to bring about the best way to put a person’s presence into proper perspective in the eyes of others who can readily tell if someone seeks to thrill or cheapen themselves or if they want to have someone look to the person’s face instead of elsewhere and not become a distraction or cause to sin.

Posted by AnnaJane on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 8:01 PM (EDT):

Excellent article. There is so much nonsense on this topic that it is refreshing to read a sensible, rational viewpoint.

Posted by LNBE on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 2:33 AM (EDT):

“sistern”—I believe you mean “sisters”, as “sistern” is actually “cistern” which is a tank for storing water.

Posted by Clare on Sunday, Jul 3, 2011 12:25 AM (EDT):

Dressing with Dignity is a terrible book, with poorly thought our, poorly researched, poorly cited conclusions. I don’t know Colleen Hammond, and neither does Simcha—Simcha never cast aspersions on her character and intentions. But the book is terrible and, I think, has done a lot of damage to the dialogue on modesty; no one should apologize for saying that.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 11:18 PM (EDT):

Beth— But you don’t NEED to do a “modesty search” if you want to dress modestly AND in a “classic style”—- stores actually do carry decent skirts MOST years (I think a year or two ago may have been an exception).

Actually, my MO is usually that when something I like is in style, I buy several!

Also, Hannah Anderson outlet stores sometimes have good deals on ladies skirts that fall around the knee or calf. (And ALWAYS have good deals on cute little girls’ stuff!)

There are good things to buy ‘off the rack.’ You just need to look (or, have a really close friend who looks and then calls you when there’s a sale! :) )

Posted by Beth on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 6:27 PM (EDT):

@ Deirdre - Try an online search for modest skirts, modest skirts and dresses, long skirts, and the like. There are many online sources for skirts and patterns.

Posted by Mary cracraft on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 2:47 PM (EDT):

I work in marketing sales ( looking to get out tho ) and for what it’s worth am a revert in love with my faith; am recovering from about 25 years as part of an “ecumenical” “charismatic” Christian “covenant” community (all the quote marks are shorthand for a variety of things since I’m writing this on my little iPhone…please don’t read TOO much into them, thanks); and am a former reporter and editor. I guess all that doesn’t matter tremendously except it’s sometimes nice to know a little about where a person might be coming from in what they write. So now I’d just like to share that I see a ton if Facebook pages every day, and IMO, the conversations generated by Register blogs/columns FAR surpass the vast majority of what happens in the stringoshere, or the postosphere, or the blogosphere out there today. Much of what was posted here, for example, contained something either truly Catechetical, or educational, or at least thought ( as opposed to reaction) provoking. I feel myself being slowly molded and subtly prodded towards fruitful thought and prayer. (No, not just on “modesty” per se, tho I do think thought on that is worthwhile.) I think I most especially appreciate three things: The opportunity to hear from and in a sense “know” thoughtful Catholics I may never otherwise have come in contact with; the building up in our Faith—the truth and greater understanding I gain—for example, one valuable nugget from this discussion is just the greater awareness of what @Nicole articulated well, the dangers of extremes in our thinking on modesty; and last, just the delight and joy of perceiving all the different personalities and persons out there. Doesn’t it blow your mind to think about the hope we have of someday sharing Heaven together? Last, I do really appreciate the passion and thought people on Register blog strings put in. (Please feel free to correct my terminology…I post on FB a lot but that doesn’t mean I know the terms!!). We have a treasure here. Even on what you might think would be thoughtful discussions—places like the Wall St Journal Facebook for example,—you just don’t get real discussion-type argument such as we have here. You mostly get more quick quips or shots over the how or just “agree” or “disagree” comments. Not that those aren’t of value. But even on the Fr Corapi blogs on the Register, there was much actual opportunity for deeper conversion, and I read some catechesis as well. This is what we live for!! Deeper conversion to the Truth—who IS a Person!! In Christ’s Church… we can know Him in the breaking of the Bread… and in one another! So more Truth…AMEN to you all my brothers and sisters…MARANATHA! (Bring it ON…! and btw..I’d love to know the meaning of the poem above… My Latin’s not good ... It is Latin? ) xo to you all.

Posted by Ricky on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 2:07 PM (EDT):

Years ago I red DRESSING WITH DIGNITY and found it said things that needed saying I’m 81 years old and not qualified to pontificate on its literary merits.
Shame on you for putting it down and perhaps preventing people who may need to be exposed to its ideas not doing so.

Posted by Lea S. on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:57 PM (EDT):

Having grown up going to retreats and camps for Catholic girls, many of my friends wore skirts all or most of the time. So I one hundred percent understand why many Catholic females have them as part of everyday clothing, and I applaud them! I myself also enjoy wearing skirts, although not half as often as nice jeans. My sole caveat is that if you wear skirts everyday, for heaven’s sake wear STYLISH skirts (which no, doesn’t equal miniskirts!). Here’s my biggest fear: if you and your family and friends are dressed in floor-sweeping denim and florals in drab styles that aren’t even sold in stores…and this may sound a bit cruel…to the eye unaccustomed to drastic modesty you look like you’re part of a cult. That’s right. PART OF A CULT. Please please find some stylish skirts! Long Bohemian skirts are actually quite stylish right now—get thee to a mall!

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:36 PM (EDT):

When really, you can love someone and STILL think their ideas are wrong, or stupid, or uninformed.

My guess is that, due to deficiencies in the modern educational system, many people never learned how to be disagreed with.

I, on the other hand, was fortunate to have professors who would quash my brilliant insight with a “No. That’s not it at all, and if you actually LOOKED AT THE TEXT…...”

Also, there’s a huge difference between FEELING right and BEING right….. And in an argument, logic trumps feelings.

And just because you LIKE an author doesn’t mean everything he writes is Brilliant. Heck, even Terry Pratchett has his bad days! And even Doctors of the Church have some pieces of writing that make you say, “What was he THINKING?@!?!”

Posted by Paul Zummo on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:28 PM (EDT):

The bottom line is, for many people “uncharitable” means simply disagreeing with one’s cherished viewpoint without equivocation.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:18 PM (EDT):

If it’s nonfiction, I’d say part of doing your best work is providing citations. Otherwise, you can make random, false assertions and then well-meaning people will pass them on because they assume that good intentions = good research and these bizarro Urban Catholic Legends get started and when you try to debunk them with facts or logic, they say “But Drew Mariani said it, and he’s orthodox!”

(Thinking especially of that 12 days of christmas as “secret catechism” thing. Because the dual nature of Christ and the Three persons of the Trinity and the 4 evangelists were so TOTALLY UP FOR GRABS in Elizabethan England. <eyeroll>)

If more “inspirational writers” would try to find the actual sources for their “everyone knows” nuggets that they use as the basis for their arguments…... we’d probably have fewer inspirational writers.

Posted by GARY THE ALLIGATOR on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:02 PM (EDT):

DOES HE ALSO CALL YOU TO CITE SOURCES?

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:59 PM (EDT):

Cecilia—that’s a good point. Also poor filmmaking! (Yes, I’m looking at you, Fireproof!)

A good thing to remember—If God calls you to write a book, he also calls you to EDIT it—it’s that whole “Doing the your best work for God” thing.

Posted by Cecilia on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:53 PM (EDT):

re: the Amish
I’ve always thought it was a good comparison, because the Amish are separatists who don’t evangelize at all. And the trouble with Catholics who embrace radical frumpiness as a moral discipline is that it’s a barrier to evangelization. That’s exactly the kind of needless barrier to spreading the Good News that St. Paul advises against.

And for a good many educated people, poor writing has exactly the same effect.

Posted by Denita on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:15 PM (EDT):

@ Todd: DITTO

Posted by Corita on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 11:43 AM (EDT):

As the mother of four boys I also wanted to add that talking about how real people around us are dressed might be a complete misdirection. If real live people are dressed in a way we find stimulating then part of the counter-attack is to remember their humanity.
//
However, when we are dealing with a constant assault on the senses f two-dimensional images of scantily clad women then the image goes straight into the brain, often without critical thinking engaged. There is more effort required to remember that these are pictures of real people, not mere objects for consumption. And guess what? Even if I monitor the television, movies, and print that come into the house, I have to run the gauntlet at the supermarket checkout aisle.

Posted by l.vellenga on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 11:11 AM (EDT):

the book i recommend to folks (college students, generally) is “A Return to Modesty,” written by Wendy Shalit who is an Orthodox Jew. funny, helpful, written to a broad audience, and really well-written, considering Shalit wrote the book as a 23(?) year-old college graduate.

and just sayin’, but while i appreciate modesty (esp. as the mother of boys), some of y’all need to find a better cause. this one’s not worth dying (or crucifying someone else) on the side of a hill for.

Posted by elleblue on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 4:31 AM (EDT):

When the topic of dressing modestly in church came up he said, “dress as if someone loves you.”

I loved that!!

Posted by Sarah on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:53 AM (EDT):

Simcha, you are right on, especially with #1. As a teen I sat through countless Theology of the Body talks that just made me want to run out and start reflecting the Trinity by makin’ babies. I’m all for reminding the secular world that married, monogamous sex is awesome, but marriage is a sacrament and vocation, not just a license for intercourse.

PS Please try to make it through Dressing With Dignity. I would LOVE to hear your thoughts. As a historian, I sped through it because I was dying to see what other logical fallacies about past centuries would appear.

Posted by Nicole on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:22 AM (EDT):

I would like to suggest that what really is so off-putting about the extreme modesty examples that Simcha cites is the “holier than thou” attitude they each seem to be motivated by. It is of course, very sad that the devil can undermine even our most laudable goals by pushing us to extremes, inserting pride, and fostering an uncharitable judgment of the motives of others. So I agree in theory with the premise of this article. It seemed to me though, that these points could have been more felicitously expressed. She appears to have generated quite a bit of rancor with her generalizations about the motives of others, and it may not have been the best idea to negatively comment about the writing style of a popular modesty speaker. At best it seems out of place in this article, having more to do with writing skill than the actual topic at hand, at worst it seems like mudslinging. Furthermore, no matter how well-written a child’s book it may be, a comparison with “Scooby-Doo and the Haunted Cupcake Factory” could never be less than unflattering to someone attempting to write a book about a serious subject for adults. Finally, I also wonder, when did “irreverent” become a complimentary adjective? It seems to me that Simcha’s “irreverent humour” is what has prompted the most negative and angry comments on her article. Perhaps she should reconsider her approach. It seems to have offended quite a few people, and undermined her own credibility.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 1:11 AM (EDT):

Oh! I just thought of another reason why cheap clothing has gotten so skimpy (and ugly)—Cotton prices have been going up for years, and retailers want to still be able to offer things like T-shirts 2/10$. So the answer is to use less fabric.

That’s why, for instance, while Old Navy’s 5$ T-shirts used to be pretty nice, they now require a cami underneath if you want to wear them outside your front door.

I’m glad to hear Forever 21 has some decent stuff—I never saw the store till I was over 21 and had already given birth, so they’re not high on my shopping list. I tend to go more for “Middle-aged Mom” clothes for my day to day wear…..

Posted by FTW! on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:48 AM (EDT):

The book is awful. And I have the right to say that without scrupulous fingers pointing at ME telling me I’m uncharitable. We are allowed to have opinions, salty, pointed, biting opinions that absolutely rub people the wrong way. (Where did this idea come from that we all have to be saccharine? It’s so…phony.) Or else every book reviewer, every movie reviewer, every play reviewer would not be allowed to be Catholic. Same for that book. Her writing is bad, her ideas were stolen (from Alice von Hildebrand - who, by the way, wears pants!) and her standards are far too conservative for my taste and certainly not the last word on what a Catholic can or can’t wear; to even think that she’s the go-to source for clothing guidelines is, well, I think Stacey London could teach her a thing or three.
I think a lot of these people are the kind who think that Thomas Kinkade makes beautiful paintings. Again, saccharine.
Oh, and TAN also publishes AA-1025, so….HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
These comments are SO awesome; I think you should ONLY blog on skirt length, Medjugorje, Harry Potter, and yoga. Woooo-hoooo!

Posted by Krystina on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:30 AM (EDT):

Just a sidebar comment from reading another: Forever 21 actually has a lot of long dresses/skirts in right now. I was just at the mall this week and saw them! Most are the “peasant” style, but there are some really nice fabrics and they are pretty modest. Most dresses would require a cardigan over as they are almost all sleeveless, but at least there are some inexpensive options!

Posted by Andrew Wolfe on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:20 AM (EDT):

+1 Simcha

“Custody of the eyes” is a lifesaver…

Posted by A on Saturday, Jul 2, 2011 12:07 AM (EDT):

@Simcha. I just read your blog from yesterday and I’ve had a fun, fun idea! Ignore these comments and write a whole series on modesty…then we can all play ‘Spot the Rabbit!’
Sounds like fun to me!!

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:32 PM (EDT):

Ok—first of all, she did not compare the book to a cartoon. She compared it (unfavorably) to a children’s book BASED off the cartoon.

Second of all, as far as “based off cartoon picture books” go, the Scooby Doo ones aren’t half bad. They really convey the feel of the show, and unlike the disney-books-of-doom, a parent can actually read them without losing her voice half through. They are not HORRIBLE given the topic and audience.

Finally, there seems to be a loud minority in Catholic circles who insist on equating “Good Message” with “Good Art.” They are NOT the same. And you can have something with a good message that is poorly written. (heck, I’d say 9/10 of Ligouri’s work falls into this category.) I haven’t read the book she dislikes, but heck—it’s OK to dislike certain books—it’s a TASTE issue, not a moral one.

Posted by Susan F. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:25 PM (EDT):

Simcha likened the quality of the book to a cartoon, without giving any examples or citing any specific arguments. Are you holding her up as a model of charity, C?

What I am defending is Catholics snarkily attacking other Catholics, not supporting their arguements, and behaving like snickering bullies.

Once again, YET AGAIN may I ask someone to give me some examples of obsessions with modesty run rife across the Catholic blogosphere? Who is obsessed with modesty and oppressing the masses by their unrepentant and unrelenting drive to have you dress nicely? Help! Help! You are being oppressed! Cling to your pants, lest they be stolen in the night by… hum ... literature that you think is substandard quality! Name these pervy monsters, who, through their sick devotion to modesty, should be according to Simcha “smacked upside the head.” I want names!

Here is an excerpt from the Act of Reparation for the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus (today) which was prescribed by Pope Pius XI to be recited on this Feast Day.

“We are now resolved to expiate each and every deplorable outrage committed against Thee; we are now determined to make amends for the manifold offenses against Christian modesty in unbecoming dress and behavior, for all the foul seductions laid to ensnare the feet of the innocent.”

Immodesty is not just a judgment call but rather an objective public sacrilege against God (operative text above: committed against Thee). Mock it at your own peril. Embrasing sacrilege in the name of charity is the height of ignorance.

Posted by Mary Alexander on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:15 PM (EDT):

Hey Simcha,

I don’t always agree with everything you write but I love your writing. Great article! Much needed.
Mary

Posted by A on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:13 PM (EDT):

Wow! I am always astounded at the venom in peoples comments, considering the location of this blog. And I am always disappointed, since I would bet that most of us (reading here) are Christian.

To me, this blog was not about judgements regarding modesty, it was about situations when a focus on “thebodythebodythebody” becomes immodest, and vain…a subject isn’t reflected in the comments much at all.

Many of these comments were just plain old mean. People may not agree with Simchas opinion of another book, or with what she says at all, but as I said, many comments are just plain mean. Even if you think Simcha was uncharitable, ‘an eye for an eye’ is no way for us to treat eachother.
Nasty, people, nasty.

Posted by C on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:26 PM (EDT):

I have recently adopted radical modesty….wearing only long skirts, read Dressing with Dignity….have been harrased by my parish priest for my “ridiculous long skirts” as he calls them after claiming toplessness in Europe proves men have become used to immodesty, I have never read Simcha before, I think modesry is a must today in our Church and I am currently very touchy about the persecution we suffer within our own Church while trying to do something out of love for God….having said that: Honestly some people have problems with reading comprehension…Simcha did not attack modesty….but made very good points about what direction a person can take if he or she becomes obsessed with modesty. Also Simcha if you are shocked at some of the rude comments know that Collen Hammond put your article in her facebook page….quoting where you say her book is not well written (which I totally agree with eventhough I found some stuff helpfull)...that is why a bunch of her followers came to you to make horrible uncharitable attacks. I was shocked to read the anger….the rudeness and lack of charity in those “defending” Collen Hammond’s book. I thank you for this particular article that opens our eyes to possible traps we might fall into when pursuing modesty.

Posted by Susan F. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:02 PM (EDT):

Howard, could you please give some examples of Catholics in print being “obsessed” with how others dress? Would writing a book about modesty qualify? Speaking about modesty? Blogging about it? I think its a straw man, friend. We Catholics have so little to worry about that we focus our bile on people concerned with modesty?
And Howard, OF COURSE I am reacting to her final point. It’s the conclusion of her argument. Beware: if you become any more obtuse, Simcha may compare YOU to Scooby Doo.

@Enough with Relativism: Yes. The Church does have these guidelines for “objective standards of what is modest dress.” Mrs. Hammond has included them in her book. Maybe some of you might try reading it, despite Simcha’s poisoning of the well.

I think this quote from a poster here sums up the general bitterness that most ladies have when their concience is pricked, however gently (not just about dress, but about a lot of things):

“Of course, I’m probably going to hell for reading books about Vampires, dying my hair blue AND wearing pants. But so be it.” Well, it certainly interesting to know that some people are so wedded to reading trash, hair color, and their preferred style of dress, that they can joke about risking hell. Stay classy!

Posted by Older Mom on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 8:06 PM (EDT):

Another great, honest article, with thought provoking comments. Simcha, I have always wanted to be on a waiting list for your book whenever that could possibly be written, but especially now.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 7:37 PM (EDT):

Ann—I tried to link to examples of mainstream stores selling skirts that “cover the thighs”, but the comment got thrown into the spam queue.

So, with no links, in less than 10 minutes of searching I found a variety of knee length or longer skirts at Ann Taylor, Gap, and Banana republic.

I mean, sure, if you go to Maurices or Forever 21 you may not find anything decent, but if you hit the grownup stores there’s actually a decent selection of appropriate-for-work-and-church skirts. Actually, I even had good luck (but no clothes budget, so I could only look, not buy) at Target last week.

And, of course, if you want a treat, you can always go retro or rockabilly! :) Some of those stores have really cute yet modest skirts, but once again, no links since I don’t want to get flagged as a spammer!

Posted by Ann on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 7:20 PM (EDT):

Frankly, Dressing with Dignity is a book I have recommended to others. I wish a substantial pamphlet was available to pass out. I gave my copy to a woman EME at a parish, and she appreciated it. I told her, truthfully, that she always looked great at Mass. Since that time I noticed that she always wears something a bit higher in the neckline, and if she wears trousers, she wears a tunic over them. Try living 1/2 mile from the beach for 40 plus years. Bikinis and worse are the summer undress of most people in our downtown area. Guess there are no more “public indecency laws” in California any more. TRY FINDING a skirt to buy anywhere, except one that barely covers one’s thighs. Time to teach young people to sew their own modest clothing. “Stylish” and “Modest” are not mutually exclusive. I have not grown in height since I was 10 years old and sewing my own clothing was not only practical financially, but necessary unless I was prepared to alter dresses and skirts endlessly. “Custody of the eyes” needs to be taught to all men and boys, not just to seninarians!

Posted by sara on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 7:06 PM (EDT):

Mary Cracraft, If you think protestants are approaching gnosticism or mysticism in their beliefs about the physical body or the material world, then you are mistaken. God made the world and said it was good. All the protestants I know believe that.

Posted by AnO on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:57 PM (EDT):

15+ yrs ago when nursing the infant at the time, my then 2 yr old would be told “Not now, i’m busy.” One evening during this time she was watching “Wheel of Fortune”. She spied Vanna and said: “She has busies, she must have a baby.” That is the best modesty story our family has.

Posted by Deirdre Mundy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:36 PM (EDT):

I think the reason the Amish come up in discussions like this is because there are a couple of subgroups of “Catholic Amish.”

See, for examople: http://plaincatholic.tripod.com/

Notice they’re not church-approved or anything—it’s basically a “Lifestyle choice”. But they are noticeable, and if you run in homeschooling circles and go to lots of conferences, you tend to see families like this fairly often.

Of course, idolizing the Amish is a weird choice for Catholics, since the whole REASON the Amish are anti-modernity is rooted in their Anabaptist Theology. (The Anabaptists! The one time Catholics and Lutherans actually worked TOGETHER!)

So, at least to me, it seems odd that Catholics looking for a return to a ‘better era’ would emulate Amish fashion as opposed to, I dunno…. 13th century French fashion or something.

Now, if there was a group that WAS wearing 13th century french (other than the SCA)....well, maybe I could get down with that…..

@Enough with Relativism- “The Church has objective standards of what is modest dress”

And where in the world are these “objective standards”?

Posted by Emile on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:08 PM (EDT):

The British Order of The Garter has a motto that is entirely appropriate to this discussion. “Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense”. Usualy translated as Evil to him who Evil Thinks. Literal translation is more like, Damned be Those who think Evil of This.

Posted by Giuseppe Ambrose on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:05 PM (EDT):

Susan f., it can’t be forgotten this is a blog. This is a place where Mrs. Fisher airs her opinions on whatever she wants. Digs happen Like it has been mentioned twice, the author of the book herself accuses herself of poor writing. If you think the author doesn’t know what she’s talking about then you’re accusing the author of false humilty, a worse charge than bad writing.

Oh, and I love TAN books, but they aren’t infallible in deciding what books are well written, though they may be good at picking books that will satisfy their target audience.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 6:03 PM (EDT):

@Susan

Again, I don’t think Simcha was “slamming” anybody. Within the context of discussing DRESSING WITH DIGNITY, her warning was against leafletizing with ANY kind of modesty literature. I think that’s sound advice. It’s true that few women would react as outrageously as in Simcha’s example, but that’s hyperbole.

Maybe you’re reacting to her final point. Look, it’s easily observable that many sincere and well-meaning Catholics get way too caught up with details that are really other people’s business. For some it’s “modesty”, which can rocket straight from “Am I decent?” to an obsession with how other people dress. For some it’s women covering their heads at Mass. (Very nice, traditional, and reverent, but it’s emphatically not my business.) For some it’s people holding hands during the Our Father. (Just don’t try it with me!) For some it’s an obsession with the priest’s vestments. (Please no obviously wrong color or any design that might end up at http://badvestments.blogspot.com/; otherwise, it might not even be healthy for a layman like myself to know the names of the various articles of a priest’s vestments.) For some it’s an obsession with Gregorian chant that scorns not just the really bad hymns, but all hymns whatsoever. I’m sure you could add to the list.

Well, I think that’s a fair point. One of the most common mistakes we make is to take a minor virtue and make it into the queen of the virtues. One hundred years ago it was sobriety, which led to Prohibition and the evils associated with it. Today it’s generally tolerance, and we can see where that’s headed. At other times and places it’s been courage, or justice, or frugality, or generosity, or industriousness. For some individuals, very counter-cultural by today’s standards, it can be modesty. It doesn’t much matter. “And now abideth faith, hope, X, these three; but the greatest of these is X.” Whenever any virtue other than “charity” is substituted for X, problems inevitably result.

Posted by Susan F. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:25 PM (EDT):

But Howard, the post is about modesty, not about writing style. Simcha took a cheap crack about how poorly written her work is (without any examples to support her accusation) and then goes on to slam folks concerned with modesty.

Most of my ire here is over the fact that Catholic authors seem to delight in cannibalizing one another with a childish zeal, snarking over the smallest differences they have with one another. They should uplift and encourage one another. They should teach with gentleness and correct intelligently, and with compassion. They lose sight of the persons who write, create, and struggle with today’s culture… and they sound like little boys and girls who never matured past playground taunts.

Anyone who knows the quality of TAN books knows that they don’t put out a bunch of junk. If you have a problem with the writing quality of their materials, perhaps complain to them, or write a review on Amazon. But, if you want to have a serious debate with someone on topics surrounding modesty, try at least to form an argument appropriately, and don’t start with a comparison to Scooby Doo. Someone who starts from that position really doesn’t want to have a serious discussion anyway. They only mean to hurt, and belittle others.

Posted by AMA on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:23 PM (EDT):

Simcha, I have enjoyed your posts, but your modesty posts are getting increasingly worse. You do not need to repeatedly criticize others for not thinking about modesty in the same terms and same way that you do. And why be so uncharitable? May God bless any teenagers who discuss saving themselves from marriage. They have enough pressures and criticisms from the prevailing culture; they do not need a Catholic on a Catholic blog to psychoanalyze them and accuse them of panting for sex. There is nothing funny about those who are desperately trying to do the right thing while they are struggling with temptations. And there are more mature and appropriate ways to comment on the writing style of a book than to compare it to Scooby Do.

Posted by Iwearitall on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:18 PM (EDT):

I don’t think anyone here is trying to bash the Amish by referring to the fact that they have a strict, outmoded dress code. Sure, they are nice people. But their faith is not in line with the teachings of the Catholic church. Period.

Posted by Nina Suluh on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 5:06 PM (EDT):

Let me just say that I’ve known Simcha online for just about a decade if not longer. I’ve been also around the online Sola Skirtura argument block so many times that I’ve worn a path in the sidewalk.

To accuse Simcha of being uncharitable is laughable. She’s one of the most charitable people I know, albeit irreverent with her humour. Casting aspersions against her character because she had the audacity, the temerity, to review the writing *style* of a *book* that is - REALLY - not that well written, is beyond pathetic.

And I’m not buying the idea that someone who writes a book isn’t bound to professional standards and shouldn’t be expected to write clearly and appropriately. I would lump “Dressing With Dignity” firmly with “Twilight” as far as writing style “excellence” goes. Both were hard to read. But I was able to *finish* Twilight.

Of course, I’m probably going to hell for reading books about Vampires, dying my hair blue AND wearing pants. But so be it.

The author and many of the commenters seem to really be struggling with moral relativism. Dressing immodestly is objectively sinful. The Church has objective standards of what is modest dress. God is not calling us to be luke warm in our faith, but rather he wants us to put out into the deep. Modernism is the culmination of all heresies.

http://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html

Posted by Kayla on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:57 PM (EDT):

@BB: Thanks for mentioning the “amish” comments. It’s something that I wish I had thought of before I wrote my first comment, because you are definitely right. Now that I read it, it does seem mean to use them as an example of bad. So again, thanks.

@JH: Interesting note on “sensuum fidei”. I have never heard of that before and will go look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It does seem to make sense in light of everything that the Church encompasses. It also seems like a “catholic” with a small “c” idea - universal. I love learning more about our faith!

Posted by Dazed on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:29 PM (EDT):

Also, did JH make a pun when writing “commentators are SKIRTING the real issue”?!

Posted by Dazed on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:28 PM (EDT):

Well, it’s 3:30 on Friday, and almost the Fourth of July weekend! Wooo!!

Posted by J H on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:18 PM (EDT):

It seems like many of the commentators are just getting frustrated with circular arguments and blaming other for skirting the “real” issue… whether it be sex, or dignity or whatever… It appears that much of the frustration comes from some people wanting there to be rules (skirts should be 6 inches above the ankle while carrying six pounds of tomatoes in the right hand) and others wanting people to use common sense (does this shirt make someone want to have sex with me?). There’s an interesting phrase that the Church has used to accept or allow beliefs that are not hard and fast doctrines - they term it “sensuum fidei”. In the Church’s fairly recent (maybe over a year old now) document on baptism it discusses the “sensuum fidei” to explain why Limbo was thought by many to be a real doctrine of the Church. Basically, it made sense to the people, they accepted it as truth, and it helps explain some hard questions about salvation.

If anyone has the patience to wade through my thoughts here, I think modesty is in the same boat. It is not the “sensuum fidei” that women should wear only skirts or that there is one exactly proper way to dress as some might feel when they have three choices in their closets… denim jumper, prairie dress or long black thing that covers all occasions. I suspect that one might make this same argument in regards to head coverings during Mass for women. While I sometimes do wear a chapel veil or hat, I generally don’t when attending a novus ordo Mass… because it draws undue attention, my son is constantly pulling it off of my head, and I feel weird.

The Church allows its members to use common sense… and even encourages it.

Posted by Iwearitall on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:15 PM (EDT):

I think some here who have commented on homosexuality/gender neutrality are confusing femininity and modesty, which are two different things. I personally try to dress femininely without showing too much skin, which may mean pants or skirts, depending on my mood. I like fashion and being a woman, and thank God the Catholic church doesn’t force me to wear a burka or some other strange get-up. I feel sorry for others who are wringing their hands in the corner, watching the world go by. Some must be struggling with scrupulocity, which I have heard is very painful, and I feel for them. Still others seem to be hinding behind thinly veiled impure thoughts. “Good” Catholics need Confession too, you know. Harsh judgment and impure thoughts are nothing to scoff at when it comes to our eternal salvation. Finally, I’ve read Dressing with Dignity and honestly felt it came across as paranoid, and I’ve seen it passed around Catholic circles like it’s the Catechism or the Bible (minus the Impramatur, I believe). If you must buy a fashion book written by a Catholic, I recommend It’s So You by Mary Sheehan Warren, which is meatier, more well-rounded and covers the whole modesty/femininity issue very well, in my opinion.

Posted by Christina on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:12 PM (EDT):

@Diane, just in case that didn’t work, you stop the emails by clicking on the link at the bottom of the emails: “To stop receiving notifications for this comment, click here: [link]”. I think the link may be different for each person or I would include it.

Posted by Mary on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:08 PM (EDT):

Simcha, can you write about something else, now?

Posted by Christina on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:08 PM (EDT):

The full extent of what Simcha said about the book: “Dressing With Dignity is one of the most poorly-written books I’ve ever come across. And I own Scooby Doo and the Haunted Cupcake Factory.”

She said nothing about the author, the authors intentions or the specific content. This sentence merely says that the grammar, sentence structure, etc of the book was not the best. However, I’ve not read the book in question, perhaps there is some subtle allusion that I missed.

Note about tone (which doesn’t carry through in writing): I only just began reading this blog so I’m fairly non-biased on this topic. I’m not upset, frustrated, defensive, or any other heightened emotion. I’m saying this with more of a “what?” tone and am seriously wondering why Simcha is getting torn apart as if she called the author a whore and spread lies about her. Especially if, as another commenter said, the author herself says she’s not a great writer.

Posted by BB on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 4:02 PM (EDT):

Great article, full of Simcha’s irreverent humor which never fails to make its worthwhile point. Meanwhile, can we, as a matter of charity, refrain from referring slightingly to “the Amish?” Don’t know any, but they seem like well-intentioned,family-oriented folks, and solid citizens to boot. Plus, they’re a practicing religious group, and it seems mean to hold them up as figures of fun. If we must have a cliche’, we could try “Little House” or “Frontier Days” or “Pilgrims” without insulting a living soul. But I have enjoyed the lively debate, on a topic that’s so important and so counter-cultural.

Posted by Mandy P. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:50 PM (EDT):

About point number two. I have a four-year-old son who recently wanted to wear shorts to Mass on Sunday. I said no and told him we do not wear shorts to Mass. Being four, he wanted to know why. I explained to him that we want to give our best to God when we go to Mass and so we make sure we look our best. A few weeks later, a friend of mine wore shorts to Mass and he told her, “You’re not supposed to wear shorts to Mass!” I was mortified and apologized and, of course, explained to him that the people in OUR family don’t wear shorts to Mass, and that other families are different and that he needs to mind his own business.

Now, if he’d done that and I’d been proud of his behavior and/or encouraged it, that would definitely fit in with point number two. However, when kids are young they notice- and often comment- when others do things that we’ve told them are unacceptable. It’s just in their nature. So long as parents correct them when they make inappropriate comments then I don’t really see it as a result of a parent going overboard with the modesty issue. If I’m not supposed to teach a thing to my children that they might untactfully repeat and inadvertently offend others then I may as well give up all together.

Posted by Krystina on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:49 PM (EDT):

@ Melissa - thank you for your comments. You said everything I wanted to say, but better! I have also read Colleen’s book twice (once when I was still wearing pants and only skirts on Sundays, and again just last month in my new pro-dress days) and I have gathered so much from it.

Colleen does not preach to be a professional writer, which she states in her book saying that she had to be convinced to even start writing a book about modesty by someone who respected her knowledge on the issue. She is an animated, charitable Catholic woman/wife/mother who is trying to help her fellow Catholics avoid sin an obtain heaven if we can.

@Christina: I can’t speak for others, but I’m sure you are right that Colleen doesn’t need us to “defend her honour”, but as someone who respects her and is disappointed in those who speak negatively of good people, I feel it is entirely necessary to defend her good works and intentions. If you are a Catholic, you should know that in this culture of death and sex that we have to defend so much of what is good and true.

@ Kiera - I also wear skirts/dresses every day while chasing after my 2 boys under 2 and I have yet to have any real problems. I actually find them very handy in more ways than just the modesty aspect - i.e. sitting comfortably without any tight pants binding my movement; wiping noses; keeping cool on hot days; and I love looking nice even when I am just sitting at home (especially if I get a visitor at the door unexpectedly!).

I saw Colleen speak a few months ago, after reading her book, and I enjoyed her very much. She has another book coming soon about gossiping and back-biting. (I’m not her publicist or anything - I’m just a young Catholic mother who is thankful for her booki in helping to change the way I present myself to the world. I am very thankful for “Dressing with Dignity” and I think my husband is too!!)

Posted by Kiera on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:40 PM (EDT):

@KL—Respectfully, I must point out that caring for children and living with them are two different things. I do have kids, and my son DOES notice. He’s only 3 and noticed for the first time when he was 2. The only reason we’ve talked about modesty is because HE has pointed it out. I DON’T point it out as I don’t want him looking at it. And the majority of people I know with kids have said similar things of their children.

Posted by Emily on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:18 PM (EDT):

Main stream America is in desperate need of a modesty make-over. But, asking modern women to dress like the Amish is not the answer. Some of these comments remind me of Margaret Atwood’s “A Handmaids Tale.” If you aren’t familiar with it, you should read it.

All we can do is lead by example. Dress in a way that is self-flattering so we feel good about ourselves, but doesn’t draw attention (think Audrey Hepburn, always classy, never trashy). You can’t force someone else to see the world the way you see it and you shouldn’t judge them for seeing it differently than you. Perhaps if they see how comfortable you are in your own skin, your look will be “contagious”.

Posted by Paul Zummo on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:13 PM (EDT):

. And, I agree, uncharitable, counter productive articles such as this also keep me away from NCR.
<div>
Your comment was more uncharitable than anything Simcha wrote, unless honesty is now considered uncharitable. </div>

Posted by merno on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 3:10 PM (EDT):

Christina, “@Paladin @Eric, how is saying a book is poorly written vile and rude?...hopefully Ms. Hammond is enough of a professional to accept critiques without the need of others to defend her honor.” How defensive can you be Christina! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Simcha didn’t say “The Cat In the Hat was poorly written…” She knew what she was sayin’ / doin’. Let’s face it, this country has a problem with morals. We either start fixin’ em, or we don’t. I see Ms. Hammond as trying to put a rock back in the dam, to save it! I see it only as classy, not rigid and frigid. Okay, I’m don’t on here. Just be nice and dress well. However you do that. I agree with Todd, just dress modest and shut up. lol

Posted by KL on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:59 PM (EDT):

@Kiera
“...children have a natural sense of modesty before it is taken from them and will ask about immodesty before a parent says anything.”
I (respectfully) beg to differ! While I do not yet have children of my own, I’ve been a sitter for more than my fair share of toddlers, and I’m of the personal opinion that two- to four-year-olds are the least modest people in the entire world. If I had a dollar for every time I had to hurriedly yank a little girl’s skirt down after she pulled it up over her head at the park or had to collect the scattered shirt…pants…diaper??... of a boy as he scampered merrily naked around the house and maybe through the front yard, I’d be a very rich woman.

Posted by merno on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:58 PM (EDT):

I once worked for a very presitigous law firm. I was notarizing a wealthy couple’s estate documents one day when they congratulated me on my dress (I was wearing a nice dress suit consisting of a suit jacket/skirt). The woman went around the country giving speeches on “women being successful in the work place.” She told me that research shows women who wears skirts are much more respected by their co-workers than women who wear pants. I’m just sayin’ maybe there is something to all this???? ... but I still wear pants on occasion, when walking, hiking, working in the garden. Balance is good.

My children ask our women guests who wears pants “are you Catholic?” That embarasses me, I don’t need to be “slapped upside the head” for that! I don’t “teach” it, but I do it mostly (wear skirts). My husband and boys say I look nicer in dresses/skirts as I am a little heavy. But I am not Amish, and do not like standing out. So I wear pants when I go for walks and not dresses anymore. I want my children to have balance and be kind to others ... Just glad I won’t have to fight to keep my daughter from wearing sexy pants when she is a teen (she is only 6 now)!

Posted by Todd on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:57 PM (EDT):

Let’s just dress modestly and shut up. You are all driving me nuts.

Posted by merno on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:50 PM (EDT):

Perhaps in a time of sex confusion and gay rights, perhaps modesty plays a role? Who are we to say women wearing skirts ISN’T necessary? Maybe it is? Would it help the genders recognize their roles? I’m just sayin…

Posted by melissa on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:43 PM (EDT):

And by the way - when’s the last time anyone saw a picture of Colleen wearing her hair in a bun and a shirt with a ruffled collar to her chin? She’s not advocating we dress in burkas here, folks.

Kahili, that’s just not a very nice comment at all. Why do people assume that because someone agrees with another person, they are being told what to say? Let’s have some charity here please!

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:42 PM (EDT):

I think you folks are really misreading the comment on DRESSING WITH DIGNITY. Simcha did not criticize its content, let alone the need for such a book: she criticized the writing style. I would guess 50% of all textbooks and 85% of all technical books, no matter how useful or important, can be criticized in the same way. In fact, from years of looking at book reviews in Physics Today and American Scientist, I would summarize the most common book review in this way: “The author collects some important ideas for the first time into book form. However, there were important omissions, and on several important points the book was confusing and potentially misleading. The book really needed better organization and a better index. The book is more likely to be a useful reference for researchers than a good textbook.”

Another point she makes about the book is that it is not a good means of “evangelizing” for modesty. Well, no kidding. Giving someone a copy of PERSONAL HYGIENE FOR DUMMIES is also not likely to lead to a positive response. This is even less a criticism of the book; it’s a criticism of how people sometimes misuse the book.

Posted by Kahili on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:37 PM (EDT):

I would comment some more, but Colleen Hammond hasn’t told me what to say yet.

Posted by Kiera on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:35 PM (EDT):

Articles like this create the problem with modesty discussions. While it is possible to be uncharitable while preaching modesty, it is also uncharitable to criticize so severely those who would seek to try to be modest. Perhaps some are not dressing modestly in the right way and for the right reasons, but many are, including Mrs. Hammond. Personal attacks—whether they be from a child who blurts out something about the clothing ona passer by or from a blogger who dislikes a book—are often not charitable. I must add, children have a natural sense of modesty before it is taken from them and will ask about immodesty before a parent says anything. Yes, children needed to be guided into being polite and charitable. But small children WILL tell you all about what they see, including the firetruck on the road, the guy walking his dog, the guy on his bike, and the person who’s dressed immodestly. It’s hard to stop a small child from blurting such things out. Furthermore, I have been wearing skirts for years. I’ve been chasing after my little guys, out and about, and even canoeing in skirts, and I have yet to have a problem with it. Just as one would choose carefully which pants to go hiking in, one should choose carefully which skirt to wear as well. One needs look no further than St. Padre Pio to find the importance of modesty. And, I agree, uncharitable, counter productive articles such as this also keep me away from NCR. I only heard about this one from facebook. The whole point here: Charity must reign in our hearts and must extend to all parts of our lives—what we wear, how we interact with others, and what we write.

Posted by MaryG on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:34 PM (EDT):

Simcha, unfortunately for your cause, you write like a woman who feels guilty for not dressing differently. You are inordinately defensive of your position and it makes one think that, having tried and failed at ‘sola skirtura’, you must continually justify to yourself your wearing of pants. Just wear pants, for goodness sakes, and get over it! Don’t be obsessed.

Posted by Christina on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:29 PM (EDT):

Re @Paladin @Eric, how is saying a book is poorly written vile and rude? Would it be more polite to nod and smile and convince others to buy something that you don’t like? Hopefully Ms. Hammond is enough of a professional to accept critiques without the need of others to defend her honor.

Posted by melissa on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:26 PM (EDT):

I have actually read Dressing With Dignity - more than once - and recommended it to others. I simply don’t understand how you can equate the desire to be modest with sex-obsession. I dress modestly because I feel it is respectful to others, it makes me feel feminine and pretty, and I’m being more respectful to my husband who is truly the only person in the world besides my doctor who should see me without modest clothing. I don’t believe the body is dirty, or ugly, or that I am a sex object. I think the body is beautiful and you don’t shroud something beautiful in ugly garments! I used to dress very provocatively, before becoming a Catholic, and I was very aware of how my immodesty affected others (specifically men). It’s not about being an object, it’s about not tempting others to sin. I wouldn’t hold my hand out to others filled with stolen goods, nor will I hold my body out to others to view and covet when it is sinful to do so.

And thank God for the child who understands that a woman who dresses immodestly doesn’t think much of herself - he’ll grow up one day to be a wonderful husband who respects his wife! That’s quite a lot more than I can say for most youth in these days.

Posted by merno on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:23 PM (EDT):

Well said! Yes, less finger pointing and more “doing.” How DO we dress modestly? Well now, your article really doesn’t say. I think Colleen Hammond puts it down pretty well. Thanks Colleen for some substantial research and soul searching referencing psychology and theology as your basis. I grew up in finger-pointing trad groups with much “extremism” and I agree many of the men and women are finger-pointing pervs and unbalanced. They dress in rigid manners, yet their children grow up and want to wear spray painted clothes with bra straps exposed. Help!? And how did this happen? Nobody knows HOW to dress modestly and too much emphasis is put on this or that. Too much rigid finger pointing perhaps.

Posted by Mary Cracraft on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:19 PM (EDT):

Thanks Simcha, excellent insights. I think I’ll even be able to keep my approach to this in line with Jennifer’s aphorism about how dressing in such an ultra-“modest” way as to say “don’t look at me” is ALSO saying, “...because I’m a sex object.”

One of the big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism as well as non-Christian religions (I don’t mean Judaism though) is that we truly believe the body is good. How that plays out in the way we dress is worth thinking about. Many comments have helped with that. Glad we could have this chat. :) Happy Glorious Fourth!

Posted by Susan F. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:11 PM (EDT):

I have to agree with Eric on this one. You just sound mean and bitter. Mrs. Hammond is a real person who writes with true spiritual concern and out of a spirit of helping others. I have heard her talk, and she has only kind words and no judgement for everyone. You could learn an important lesson from her.

I also don’t like the way you accuse people who are concerned with modesty of being obsessed with sex. It’s like accusing people who fight the homosexual lobby of being closet gays. Your judgement in this area is over the top, and really disappointing. And,speaking of obsession, I haven’t seen anyone out in blogland lately who is ranting about modesty in such a shrill fashion - but you.

Posted by Jessica Eballar on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:11 PM (EDT):

Well, it’s a touchy subject (no pun intended). And it’s not about ignoring the problem that’s the solution. There’s sex everywehre - regular TV, commercials, “innocent” books like Twilight, etc. And women aren’t naturally sensitive to sensuality than guys are. So ladies, it’s up to us to be charitable to the guys who are trying to make an effort to be modest in their thoughts, eyes, and conduct.

And all of this boils down to pro-creation. I find that sex is one of the strongest forces on earth. It can create a human life but it can also destroy a family/marriage….. It can bring happiness and fulfillment in a marriage but it can also bring humans to twist the laws of nature. It’s also a factor in STDs. This isn’t something to take lightly.

And modesty is the first defense, the first in the battle. Chastity is the second. And outright abstinence is the third. In a war, you start with your first line of defense in order to reduce the amount of violence. And to go against natural tendencies to pro-create sometimes takes a great physical effort so one has “to do violence on oneself” in order to win the battle.

We’re doing this for God, first and foremost, people. If Our Lord was willing to be scourged, we must also in our own “little way” (referencing St. Therese of the Child Jesus).

As for the obsession, I think anyone (esp if they have scrupulous tendencies) can make anything an obsession: diet, work, social interaction, etc. Considering the sensitivity of the subject matter, I can understand how people would have this tendency to be “obsessed.” But one cannot be assuming and nonchalant about such a serious matter. That’s where virtue is supposed to come in: the balance between the two extremes.

Posted by Bem on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:10 PM (EDT):

It seems to me there needs to be a lot more charity and a lot less judgment on BOTH SIDES of this debate. True, there are self-righteous conservative Catholics who condemn others for what they wear but there’s nothing wrong with calling for higher standards and it is hypocritcal to point out judgmentalism in (some) of those who feel that only dresses and skirts are appropriate by mocking the style of those same women. I know many women who never wear pants and I rarely hear uncharitable talk about other women. I have not read Dressing With Dignity but I was offended by your cruel and immature trashing of the book.

Also, as a man, I wonder why the modesty debate focuses almost exclusively on women. Immodesty in men is just as common, if not more so (men are much more likely to walk around in public without a shirt) but no one ever talks about that.

Posted by Kallie on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 2:08 PM (EDT):

Simcha, you are my favorite writer on this topic. @Barbara C, the other issue in that example was the mother proudly relaying the anecdote, as if pleased that the son was making such judgments (unaccompanied by any humility).

Posted by Brian Vree on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:59 PM (EDT):

Crap article. Register must be getting desperate.

Posted by Paul Zummo on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:59 PM (EDT):

Howard: thank you. It never ceases to amuse me that the people who caterwaul the loudest about tone and being judgmental are often the rudest and the most judgmental.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:54 PM (EDT):

Let me paraphrase some of these comments.

“Simcha, a good Catholic should not say disparaging things about others, but you critiqued the writing style of someone’s book. That’s why I know and wish to share with others that you are a dirty no-good hypocrite. Scum like you make me sick; only a total loser would write something critical of another person.

But the good news is that there may be $$$ in it for you if you apologize. If you apologize I will continue to read your free blog and I will *consider* buying a book from you, because an apology could only be motivated by true Christian humility.”

Posted by Barbara C. on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:54 PM (EDT):

Well, Eric, the NCR pays Simcha to express her opinion on anything Catholic, so I think that gives her authority enough!!

And Mrs. O, there’s a difference between a child asking about the appropriateness of someone else’s outfit properly and casting aspersions on another’s character or emotional well-being based on their clothing choices. In the example Simcha offered the child was doing the latter.

I have modesty standards for my children, and I explain why. I also explain that other families may have different ones, just like other families have other rules. I may point out that I wish Katy Perry would wear less revealing clothing when my daughter asks if I like Ms. Perry’s outfit, but I don’t spend all my day being the “Modesty Police” or encourage my children to do so.

I, too, have personally heard someone say with pride that they would sit in the van with their kids and pick apart the wardrobe of every woman, especially those in pants, who came out of a store. This smacks of arrogance, hyper-sensitivity, and lack of charity, not right education.

Posted by Seraphim on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:49 PM (EDT):

It would seem a bit healthier to assume that people dress however they do because it is more comfortable and/or convenient and/or too hot to dress however you would like them to, and not that they are deliberately trying to be immodest. The best reaction then is to just live and let live and not pay too much attention to how people are dressed. Follow the clear rules the Church has set for moral living, don’t sit around indulging and prolonging lustful thoughts about people, and you’re doing fine.

Posted by Kahili on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:47 PM (EDT):

@Paladin @Eric - have either of you READ Ms. Hammond’s book? The real charity here would be to tell Ms. Hammond to read more and write less. Pretending something is not embarrassingly awful doesn’t do anyone any favors.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:46 PM (EDT):

@Simple man

No, just the absurdity of it appealed to me. Goodness knows there has been a lot of absurdity on this topic.

...

Today’s topic is true, but it needs little comment. Of course an obsession with modesty can lead to immodest thoughts and speech, just like too much talk about humility can destroy the opportunity for humility, and just like it’s impossible to carefully plan to be spontaneous.

Posted by Sarah Hodges on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:39 PM (EDT):

I don’t know how, if you choose to dress modestly and explain your choices and reasoning to your children, you can *avoid* a certain amount of that “Mommy, she’s dressed immodestly!” stuff from your six year old. Any more than you can avoid a certain amount of the same six year old pointing to other people’s grocery carts and saying, “Mommy, she is buying Fruity Pooty Sugar cereal! Yuck! That’s bad for you!”
Kids are trying to figure out the world and put everything into very severe categories that only after these categories are set, can they see nuances and shades.

I suppose you may just mean that the parent shouldn’t boast about it or otherwise encourage the rudeness, but rather murmur, “Yes dear, shhhh. Not everyone knows Sugary FrooFroos are bad for them / how to dress modestly, and we must be charitable.”
In that case, I agree.
Charity rules, even over modesty. And charity practiced rightly should lead to greater modesty, for many reasons.

I suppose the biggest lesson (and the ones kids need to learn as badly as adults do) is that the rules are there for US first, and that we need to take them to a mirror, rather than using them to measure everyone around us. A little more of that and this kind of discussion wouldn’t even be necessary.

Posted by Eric on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:27 PM (EDT):

Mrs. Fisher,

“Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom.” Your differences with Mrs. Hammond are respected, but your tenor is not. The lack of Christian charity coming from someone who claims to be a Catholic, is shameful and embarrassing to me as a Catholic. An apology to Mrs. Hammond may make me interested in your book that you are writing, because this would show true Christian humility. But, currently, you hold no authority to write about anything Catholic. In the mean time, bitter and gossip mongering articles like this in NCR against other Catholics are loosing it my readership.

Posted by Paladin on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:16 PM (EDT):

Ms. Fisher, I realize that this is the age of coarse discourse, and of offering one’s “humourous differences” with a flame-thrower, but: seriously? This was vile and rude, re: your comments about Ms. Hammond’s book. Making yourself small isn’t really a good way to enlarge on a point.

Posted by Kathy on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:03 PM (EDT):

About 6 years ago I attended a Catholic home schooling conference where an articulate young 18 year old gave a talk on modesty. She and her posse were dressed in ruffled long sleeved blouses complete with ruffles to the chin. To complete the look they had, you guessed it, long denim skirts and super long hair in a bun. Adding to the scene was the 95 degree temperature. They looked ridiculous and in fact drew much attention to themselves - which seems to me as the opposite of modesty.

Later I asked my 15 year old sitter - who came from a great Catholic family - what her thoughts were on modesty & dress. She proceeded to tell me that her mother and older 18 year old sister, who I knew pretty well, only wore skirts. I was flabbergasted. I had never noticed how they dressed - but when I thought about it - I realized I had never seen either of them in pants - just stylish skirts & tops. My sitter, a big athlete, decided that skirts were not for her and her family respected that. To me her family epitomized modesty. They didn’t talk about it, they didn’t wear weird clothes, they were just modest….

Posted by Mrs o on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 1:02 PM (EDT):

#2 you are off base in how children react and learn. Had the child gone up to the jogger would have been different than mentioning to the mother. That is how they process and learn - making comparisons no matter if you like it or not. The only smacking might be your own head for not realizing that? Also, young children may not be offbase in asking in a public setting why they can see more than they care too - eg Vanity Secrets displays and the such. Whether they should approach others and say something should be taught but then again, most places do have decency laws.

Posted by Rosario on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 12:41 PM (EDT):

Jennifer 8:48am: “The world teaches women to say, “Look at me, I’m a sex object!” The world of ultra-modesty teaches women to say, “DON’T look at me, I’m a sex object!” Both worlds are believing the same lie.”

I loooved what you said! Can I quote you on fb, twitter & my blog????
http://rosariorodriguez.wordpress.com/

Posted by bob cratchit on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:32 AM (EDT):

“demonstrate” (not demenstrate)

Posted by Lindsay on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:31 AM (EDT):

“After a certain point, thinking about modesty all the time is just another way of thinking about sex all the time. No matter how you got there, it’s not a good place to be.”

Only if you are thinking about modesty strictly in terms of sex. Avoiding lust is certainly part of modesty, but it isn’t the only part. I mean, even unattractive people should dress modestly.

I also think that questions about propriety in dress ALL get labeled as questions of “modesty” when, really, I think the skirt question is more of a general societal question about femininity rather than modesty, per se. Of course, there is room for debate there as well, and its an issue where I’m completely content to agree to disagree (the story of my life on a host of issues, lol), but I think it can be framed separately from whether one is “sufficiently covered.”

Also, I feel I can lament that women as a cultural whole dress in a less feminine way without judging anyone individually. While I agree with many of your points, it is hard to read these debates and think that it isn’t just another case of the pot calling the kettle black at times. I mean, judging women FOR wearing skirts or dresses (which, happens, at least in the comboxes, e.g, you are calling too much attention to yourself) isn’t any more reasonable than judging women for wearing pants.

Why does expressing one’s discomfort with pants *necessarily* translate to judgment of others? I’m sure some people are judgmental, but golly, *someone* is judgmental of every choice one makes. That doesn’t mean that everyone who holds and expresses a different opinion is judging those who hold the opposite or even that they hold their opinion to be a *moral* question. I only wish I could be as holy as St. Gianna, yk? I’m also glad that more modest and stylish skirt options are coming back into fashion, because I think that wearing skirts for more than just the most special occasion is a lovely thing that sort of went away for a few decades. And talking about why I think it was nice for women to wear skirts for ,oh, a couple of millennia, isn’t meant, for my part, to be a judgment of anyone. Btw, I’ve never read Dressing With Dignity, so maybe that’s where I’m missing something?

I also admit that I might be in a unique situation where I go to a TLM where there are plenty of crotchety old people but about half of which don’t wear head coverings and wear slacks almost every week. This seems to be a very different situation than most people describe.

Posted by J H on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:31 AM (EDT):

My husband often jokes about parties in our town where unmarried 24 year olds talk about how they’re learning about their fertility in their Theology of the Body classes… LOL.

One of my sisters, the one with the naturally great figure, has become so much more relaxed in her clothing since she’s been married. Her clothes fit better, she looks more put together, and is probably more attractive in a very dignified way. She says “well, I’m married now so nobody but my husband cares.” Funny what a bit of confidence and the idea that no one else is looking can do!

Posted by Diane on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:29 AM (EDT):

I am commenting only to ask how to make the follow-up comments notices stop coming to my email in a way other than sending another comment simply to be able to un-check the “notify me” box.

Posted by bob cratchit on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:28 AM (EDT):

Thank-you, no need to post videos or pictures to demenstrate either. Besides, isn’t modesty more than how you dress. It’s in the way you talk (flirty or chaste), or seeking attention in various ways. It’s in the way you conduct/engage yourself, (body language). Avoiding the appearance of evil.

Posted by Simple Man on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:27 AM (EDT):

Wow Linus - you may just have been born with some kinda other sex drive than most men. I didn’t make it through my teenage years without a thought in that department about every 3 or 4 seconds. Unfortunately, while I instinctively did know that there was something “wrong” (immoral) about it, nobody came right out and said that to me. In church we were too busy making felt banners, clapping our hands and singing Kumbaya - literally. I agree we are in a real cesspool - the only message I did get as a teen (long ago) was from the culture, which glorified lust.

@Kalya: CONGRATULATIONS! God bless you and your husband! May you have a very long and happy marriage! In fact, you will be on the intention list tonight (my wife and I).

@Simcha: Point one: Hilarious! Re: main point - if you sit around discussing, “What do some people think is so sexy that it is a turn on”, well, then, you are definitely on the wrong track.

@Howard: Lemmie guess - you work for NASA

Posted by Jeanne on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:23 AM (EDT):

“The world teaches women to say, “Look at me, I’m a sex object!” The world of ultra-modesty teaches women to say, “DON’T look at me, I’m a sex object!” Both worlds are believing the same lie.”

AMEN!!! I have often said and thought the very same thing!!!

Posted by Karen on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 11:20 AM (EDT):

Because modesty standards are so different in every culture, I take my cues, in part, from the world around me. I’m pretty sure that most reasonable adults in my circles would think a pair of jeans and a 3/4 length sleeve t shirt would be modest, so that’s what I wear most of time. In summer I may wear a short sleeve t shirt, especially if I’m pregnant and 80 degrees feels like the Sahara Desert.

..

I once tried wearing long skirts. It was cumbersome to chase after my toddler and change diapers on the floor. And I attracted MORE attention than I did in jeans. That didn’t feel…modest. Modesty is about not attracting attention, IMO.

..

And it is possible to be immodest in skirts. My sister in law requires her daughters to wear skirts at all times, even when they’re playing on the jungle gym. For a long time they thought it was a hoot to pull their long skirts up over the backs of their heads and say, “Look! We’re nuns!” and my sister in law thought it was adorable. I finally said something about how big girls didn’t show off their underwear, and it was clear they’d never heard anything like that. It’s not just the clothing that makes a modest person, it’s behavior as well.

Posted by Linus on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:46 AM (EDT):

I’m about at the point where I think these discussions are not helpful at all. I question the senserity of many of the participants - we really don’t know anything at all about them or what their motives may be. I would observe that anyone not leading a serious spiritual life and who earnestly hopes for eternal salvation should not participate in these discussions. Untold harm can be done through sheer ignorance.

I grew up in the 50’s - without T.V. and with rare movie treats. Sex was not on our minds at school or anywhere else. During my teen years I never had an impure thought or desire in regard to the opposite sex. I think I went through what some have called moral laytency. I attended small Catholic schools and associated with people who at least gave lip service to faith and good morals. The surrounding culture was thus a great help. Certain topics of conversation were just taboo, certain behaviors and modes of dress were just out. Today we are wallowing in a cultural cesspool and even in these pages some just phoo hoo it, they don’t seem to comprehend the great moral danger we are in. It isn’t a joke unless you think Hell is a joke.

Posted by Kayla on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:20 AM (EDT):

This is a wonderful article. And so, so true. Almost the entire time I was in college, the only time I didn’t feel like a piece of meat was when I was with my non-christian friends strangely enough! But I also felt that it was my fault. I thought that I wasn’t humble enough to dress modestly, and on top of that, I had body issues that eventually led to a hard time eating. You know, if I was skinnier, my clothes wouldn’t hug my body the way they do, even when I wore larger sizes. It took a long time for me to accept who I was and what shape I was, and that I wasn’t a harlot for wearing pants or clothes that actually fit. That said, I’m still extremely uncomfortable around certain men because of conversations that I remember quite clearly. However, if it weren’t for all those issues, I would never have met my best friend. She was my next door neighbor in the dorms and one night heard me sobbing uncontrollably. I had just made the switch to wearing pants occasionally, and my mom had bought me a great pair of boots. I tucked the pants into the boots and wore a nice shirt, thinking to myself that I looked nice finally, and not dowdy. But then a man (with the best of intentions) came up to me and chastised me for making men look at me in a sinful way, and he did it in front of another couple, the man of which had had another (girl) friend tell me that I was dressing like a hooker. It was mortifying. I didn’t want to leave my dorm room after that, because I was so confused and desperately did not want to lead someone to sin. It’s a process that I am still going through.

And I read “dressing with dignity” in highschool, when I first began dressing like an amish woman. Only skirts, clothes 2 size 2 big, etc. etc. And only thinking about the way my body looked, how I was presenting myself..so vain. So many issues.

Thank God for my husband, who refused to see me as a piece of meat, and instead saw me as a human; a beautiful person created and loved by God. And that’s how he has treated me at all times through our dating, engagement and (6 day) marriage so far.

Posted by ARM on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:16 AM (EDT):

Right on, Babs. Was it Kant who said this? - Somebody did, anyway: in moral deliberation about yourself you should focus on achieving virtue, but when it comes to others you should focus on achieving their happiness.

And Simcha, it’s so true about immodest modesty talk; I’ve often seen the same problem in some chastity and TOB talks.

Posted by Clare on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:14 AM (EDT):

*sorry, i meant “seriously pychologically/emotionally disturbed”

Posted by Clare on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 10:13 AM (EDT):

Please, nobody engage Logicalcalculus. He seems to be seriously/emotionally disturbed, and is possibly very young. Reasoned debate is not going to change his mind, and it’s cruel to feed whatever complex is driving him to write these things. There are plenty of Catholics of a rather misogynistic persuasion who are more fit to engage in discourse-let’s save our energy for them. With Logicalcalculus, let’s just say “there but for the grace of God go I” and say a prayer for him when we are tempted to respond to what are probably the manifestations of very serious troubles.

Posted by Babs on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:57 AM (EDT):

Yes, being overly scrupulous FOR another is as harmful as ignoring the concupiscence of humans. Sadly this wisdom is in short supply.

Posted by Jennifer on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:48 AM (EDT):

The world teaches women to say, “Look at me, I’m a sex object!” The world of ultra-modesty teaches women to say, “DON’T look at me, I’m a sex object!” Both worlds are believing the same lie.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:30 AM (EDT):

Are female astronauts strumpets because the space suit includes pants? Would it make them less irresistibly objects of lust if their space suits included hoop skirts over the pants? Does the fact that their heads are covered make the space suit appropriate for Mass in spite of the pants?

What about men astronauts? If they find themselves in trouble while on a space walk and feel the need to pray, do they have to remove their helmets first?

Posted by Mouse on Friday, Jul 1, 2011 9:15 AM (EDT):

Here’s my modesty guideline: If I’m dressed in such a way that guys who do a double-take are looking at my face. :-D
No muss, no fuss, no over-thinking.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.